STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus GURDEV SINGH, ASHOK KUMAR

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 21-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
GURDEV SINGH, ASHOK KUMAR 
AUGUST 21, 1991 
A 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
B 
YOGESI-\WAR DAYAL, JJ.J 
Limitation Act, 1963-Article 113-Application-Suit for decla-
ration of continuance in service by an illegally dismissed employee after 
three years-Barred by limitation. 
Civil Service-Dismissal-Illegal-Suit for declaration of conti-
nuance in service-Whether Article 113, Limitation Act applies. 
Limitation Act, 1963-Article · 113-"Right to sue"-Construc-
tion of-Institution of suit when indicated. 
The respondent-plaintiff in C.A. No. 1852/89 was appointed as an 
ad hoc Sub-inspector in the District Food and Supply Department. He 
. absented himself from duty from 29 September 1975. On 27 January 
1977, his services were terminated. 
c 
D 
On 18 April 1984, he instituted the suit for declaration that the 
E 
termination order was against the principles of natural justice, terms 
and conditions of employment, void and inoperative and be continued to 
be in service. 
The State-the appellant-defendant contended that -the plaintiff's 
services were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditiollS of 
F 
his ad hoc appointment and the suit was barred by time. 
The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, but 
on appeal the Additional District Judge decreed the suit, holding that 
the termination order though simplicitor in nature was passed as a 
measure of punishment without an enquiry and he should have been 
G 
given an opportnnily to explain his conduct by holding proper enquiry 
and that, since the order of termination was bad, the suit was not 
barred by lime. 
The second appeal preferred by the Slate was dismissed by the 
High Court holding that as the dismissal of the employee was illegal, 
H 
663 
A 
B 
c 
664 
St:PREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
void or inoperative be!ng fn contravention of the mandatory provisions 
of any rules or cond~tions t.1f service, there was no linlitation to bring a 
suit for declaration of continuance in service. 
The respondent-plaintiff in C.A. No. 4772/89 was appointed on. 14 
November 1?77. On 15 March 1979, he was discharged from service for 
some misconduct and against which appeal was made, which was re-
jected on 15.6.1979. 
When his revision petition was dismissed on 30.11.1979 he 
brought a suit on 12.2.1985 seeking declaration that the order discharg-
ing him from service was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional against the 
principles of natural justice and continuance in service. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the 
plaintiff was allowed by the Additional District Judge that the plaintiff 
was discharged from service in contravention of the mandatory provi· 
sions of the rules and as such it had no legal effect. There was no period of 
D 
limitation for instituting the suit for declaration that such a dismissal 
order was not binding upon the plaintiff. The High Court dismissed the 
second appeal in limine. 
· ~ 
On the question, whether limitation governs the suit for declara-
tion by a dismissed employee, if the dismissal was illegal, void or 
E 
inoperative being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of any 
rules or conditions of service, this Court, allowing the appeals of the 
State-the defendant, 
HELD: I. The Court's function on the presentation of plaint is 
r\. , 
simply to examine whether, on the assumed facts, the plaintiff is within 
F 
time. The Court has to find out when the "right to sue" accrued to the 
plaintiff. If a suit is not covered by any of the specific articles prescrib-
ing a period of limitation, it must faU within the residuary article. [667H-668A) 
2. A suit for declaration that an order of dismissal or termination 
from service passed against the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra 
G 
vires is governed by Article ll3 of the Limitation Act. [670G-H) 
3. The party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to 
approach the Court for relief of declaration that the order against him 
is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court 
within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit 
H 
expires the Court cannot give the declaration sought for. [669E-F) 
f 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDEV SINGH 
665 
4. If an act is void or ultra vires it is enough for the Court to 
A 
declare it so and it collapses automatically. It need not he set aside. The 
aggrieved party can simply seek a declaration that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.